Santa Barbara County planning commissioners appear ready to reject a Harvard University endowment fund’s proposal for man-made ponds to protect Cuyama Valley vineyards from frost damage amid questions about groundwater supply and other issues.

The commissioners remain set to deny a proposal to create ponds for use to stave off frost from damaging vineyards in the Cuyama Valley, a project that gained broad opposition from neighbors and others.

On Wednesday, the Santa Barbara County Planning Commission agreed to delay the North Fork Ranch Frost Ponds Project until May 10 so that staff can craft formal findings of rejection.

“This is a really tricky case,” said chairman John Parke, who represents the Third District. 

The three water-storage reservoirs to serve an existing 840-acre vineyard would sit on a 6,565-acre parcel south of Highway 166, approximately nine miles west of New Cuyama in the northeast corner of the county.

Each reservoir, with a maximum depth of about 27 feet, would span 5 acres and store less than 49 acre-feet of water with the supply coming from existing wells. An acre-foot equals roughly 326,000 gallons — or enough water to cover an acre of land, about the size of a football field, 1 foot deep.

“This is, by far, the most commonly used frost protection method for decades, local and statewide for vineyards, because it’s most effective in providing that blanket to the young buds against frost protection especially in vineyards of this size,” said Brian Tetley of Rural Planning Services.

On cold nights, water would be sprayed on the vines to freeze and provide protection against frost. As the sun rises and temperatures warm, the water drips to the ground, irrigating the plants or entering the ground. 

Mitigation measures would include installation of covers on the ponds to reduce losses from evaporation.

Some opposition centered on which aspects of the project fall under the California Environmental Quality Act, since irrigation and the vineyards are considered exempt from permits.

“Things that are exempt from permit are not considered part of the project under CEQA,” Tetley said.

Any environmental impacts would be mitigated, he added. 

The project’s applicant, Brodiaea Inc., is a wholly owned subsidiary of Harvard Management Co.’s endowment fund.

Opponents included multiple Cuyama Valley landowners, residents and Harvard University graduates, who have accused the organization of making land and water grabs and challenged the environmental impact report. 

Speakers noted the Cuyama Valley groundwater basin’s critical overdraft status, placing it among the worst in the state. 

“The reservoirs will further exacerbate a declining groundwater level in this area,” Cuyama Valley resident and farmer Roberta Jaffe said.

Parke agreed with speakers who questioned whether potential alternatives, such as wind turbines, were adequately explored as an alternative to frost ponds. He also contended that the potential impacts to native grasslands also weren’t adequately addressed.

Commissioner C. Michael Cooney noted the several unique aspects of the project, some of which fall outside the panel’s purview, such as questions about Harvard University’s connection.

“I understand the concern. I share it as a human being, but my resolution is not to decide emotionally based on whether I think there is a land grab going on by one of our nation’s most revered institutions and its very successful investment program,” Cooney said. 

However, Cooney added that he did listen to those directly impacted by the proposal, noting many opponents represented the ag industry in the Cuyama Valley.

“It’s the findings that we’re bound under CEQA to make that make this impossible for me to support the application,” Cooney said. “I support the agricultural production in the Cuyama  Valley completely, but it’s going to be difficult in the future and this project doesn’t make the grade.”

He cited several of the proposed findings for approval provided by county planning staff, including whether the project would be compatible with the surrounding area. 

“In a word, I can’t make those findings, so I can’t support the project as it now stands,” Cooney said. “Could it be modified? Could it be changed? I have no doubt there are tweaks that can be made.

“But I have severe doubt that I would ever find the ponds that have been proposed as the source of water for the frost control to be acceptable in a way that doesn’t affect the remainder of the neighborhood negatively.”

Parke and Commissioner Laura Bridley also said they couldn’t make findings to support the approval.

Commissioner Larry Ferini disagreed, saying he was inclined to go with staff’s recommendation since the EIR had been completed and proposed mitigation measures to reduce impacts.

“Every project is going to have an impact and the more people that  are involved the more different opinions you’re going to get and that’s what we heard today,” he said, adding they did not receive any information about hydrologic impacts from the wells.

Four commissioners voted to continue the item so staff could return with findings of denial for the panel’s formal approval next month. 

Commissioner Vincent Martinez recused himself from the discussion and vote since he has served as an attorney for a Cuyama Valley groundwater basin matter.